Problems That are Holding the Game Back (Discussion)

[OG.laloquaint]

Problems That are Holding the Game Back (Discussion)

Throughout Gwent's lifespan there have been many changes that had to be done for the sake of the game. Two big ones that come to mind are the Gold Immunity Change and the Agility Change. As we go further down the road, the game moves away from what it used to be but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing. I believe that the game is moving in the right direction, just very slowly. This might be difficult for some people to understand but I think we just have to give the developers time. I hope the implementation of Arena Mode goes smoothly on the 28th. Anyhow, I believe there are still 3 main problems in the actual gameplay of Gwent that I think, if they are solved, will make the game a much better experience for everybody.

1. Coinflip. If you already know what this problem is, I suggest that you do not continue reading this particular point. Basically, if you go first you will, most of the time, be a card down. Meaning your opponent will always have a card over you. The game has become so much about card advantage that not only does it make some cards completely unplayable, it also puts so much emphasis on having last say just because it can literally win you the game. This is why some players dry pass (don't play any cards) in round 1 and why Card Advantage spies are so important in a lot of decks. I'm glad that CDPR was quick to fix Card Advantage spies and I hope they do something about the coinflip next.
2. Rows (Melee, Range, Siege.) I forgot when row-locked cards were removed from the game but I've always thought the CDPR were going to implement a new row system. This is not a big problem or anything but I think it really takes away from the game. What's the point of having a siege row if it's going to be filled with soldiers? I'm sure you guys understand what I mean. I do not want row-locked units to be a thing in Gwent anymore but I would rather have them implement a new system. Nothing overly complicated or anything but I do hope CDPR is planning to do something with the rows because at this point they could literally remove the icons from them. Anybody know if the developers are looking into this?
3. Connection/Server Problems. I decided to add this to the list because of how terrible the servers have been. I can barely play Ranked or Arena since the update. These kinds of problems have only gotten worse for me. This is not really a gameplay problem but I think it's really turning off some people.

I know there have been discussions of these two things many, many times but I think, that with every update, that the game is shaping up to be a very fun and entertaining game. Again, I just think we need to be patient for things like these to be fixed or implemented well.

 

[iamthedave]

Coinflip is a fundamental issue to how Gwent works as a game. It's probably unfixable outside tournament play.

Rows they should probably bring back some way. I think row synergy - as suggested by Swim - is a very, very promising idea. So you can put cards anywhere, but they do something slightly more if on their preferred row, whether it be an extra ability or even just +1 power. This is where I think the bulk of the community's energy should go.

I think the third issue is too few viable archetypes, and the most fun are the least viable for the most part. Most people would agree scoiatael movement is fun as hell to play, for example, but it's straight up rubbish.

 

[MaximumSquid]

Instead of coin flip both players could play a bronze card at the same time to help determine who goes first

Siege units could gain Armor when placed on a siege row. . . do you like either suggestion?

 

[x1Cygnus]

[SNIP] Most people would agree scoiatael movement is fun as hell to play, for example, but it's straight up rubbish. [/SNIP]

ST Movement got me the 50+ wins rewards in the recent faction challenge. To say it's 'rubbish' I think isn't correct - you just have to play movement differently to get the most and best out of it - ie; there's no 'big finisher' like a certain 22pt card or anything like that; you play for a set of "win conditions" from the very first mulligan and card you play (more or less) and utilising a set of lower powered tools to create a greater whole.

ST movement gets seriously stiffed by; the draw and units not being alive long enough to do their thing - in the days of 9pt Alzurs and 11pt Viper Witchers (etc), ST movement suffers more than most from hard removal I think given the way in which the archetype works, which is why almost nobody plays it.

But when the Gwent Gods point down and declare 'this game will be perfect' and all your draws, plays and combo's come off 100% - it's amazing and real fun watching your archers virtually clear your oppo's board R3....

It's an archetype I think that could do with a bit of an overhaul in all honesty, because as you say it's great fun to play, and I think that sense of fun is what's missing more than anything else from the game.
If they could re-introduce fun mechanics and more importantly faction unique mechanics across all factions rather than just making an NG version of Caretaker, or an ST version of Sigrdrifa etc, I'd be prepared to forgive stuff like the coinflip - or not focus on how much of an issue it really is, which I think is again is something that CDPR have painted themselves into a corner with given their propensity to design single use / maximum value cards (these are cards that attain their maximum value when played from your hand - like.... well, beastmaster/bears is a good example).
Generally speaking if you get the blue coin, you're probably going to lose - and that's no way to structure a game. And before we get a lot of "blue coin doesn't mean you always lose!" replies - yeah, I know it doesn't mean always, but a good proportion of the time if you get the blue coin, you lose - I'm sure there are players out there that run trackers that have stats that will support this...

I can see the point about rows, and yeah I think that having the rows named as they are now means absolutely nothing if you can put a siege card on the melee row, what difference does it make... but more than that I think the maximum row limit is/was a stupid idea and they should revert that first; given the amount of cards that call other cards now you can fill up your board quite easily in a very long round.

 

[iamthedave]

You can win with movement, but you need to be against weaker players and weaker decks AND have a perfect hand to do it. It's no stronger than cursed NR, though its top play is incredibly strong (Zoltan + 2 marksmen or into pit trap).

 

[TheShift]

Time.. Time is holding the game back for me :wisegirl:

 

[x1Cygnus]

[SNIP] You can win with movement, but you need to be against weaker players and weaker decks AND have a perfect hand to do it. [/SNIP]

With most ST players running the Swim / 10pt Cleaver elf swarm deck during the faction challenge and SK mainly running axemen or boats + greatswords for same, getting the 50+ wins wasn't easy, and I wouldn't say any of those decks were 'weaker' than movement. Of course you're going to get players that mis-play, and some newer players that might have never gone up against a movement deck before which leads them into making mistakes, but to say that to win with movement your oppo has to be both a weaker player playing a weaker deck isn't true I don't think.

But you did nail it; you need a good hand - hence being stiffed on the draw/mulligan lost me more games than just going up against 'stronger' decks.

 

[MrInk5000]

limits on summon circles. being able to look at and choose so many cards means you get a lot of access to your deck. plus its boring waiting for your opponent to finish their turn.

slavers

being able to reveal trebuchets still in hand, unplayed, yet they can attack while quite invunerable

 

[OG.laloquaint]

I think the third issue is too few viable archetypes, and the most fun are the least viable for the most part. Most people would agree scoiatael movement is fun as hell to play, for example, but it's straight up rubbish.

I think they ARE aware of some archetypes being extremely under-powered, I just hope they do eventually add cards to make them stronger.

Movement is probably my personal favorite ST archetype. I have a deck were I use double Pit Trap with Ithlinne. Sometimes even three with the Runestone. You could be 20 points behind and one well-timed Geralt: Aard will win you the game. Pit Trap is a great example of a card that's design to support an already existing archetype.

 

[OG.laloquaint]

Instead of coin flip both players could play a bronze card at the same time to help determine who goes first

Siege units could gain Armor when placed on a siege row. . . do you like either suggestion?

I don't like the coinflip solution, I'm not really sure how to fix it honestly.

Yeah, that's definitely a start. Just a simple solution really, like more points, armor or SOMETHING.

 

[Makhil]

The coin flip will always be a problem. The best you can do is trying to lower the randomness. For example:
- the player with more points in hand starts. That leaves the strategic choice for players to discard their 2 strongest cards to try to avoid playing first... with the problem of not having enough points at the end.

 

[tealquest]

everybody.

You mean everybody playing on pro level? Or actually everybody? Cause stuff you mention won't solve a thing for new players. I'd much rather see some fundamental things getting some love like:

1. Matchmaking. Which is horrible, placing completely new players with starter decks against top-netdecks.

2. Wording. A LOT of cards in the game have really confusing and misleading (especially for new players) wording. ("ally" and "friendly unit" - both used, but mean the same - confusing as F. "End of row". "Highest" and "lowest" - tooltips are just wrong (scorch says remove all highest and the word "highest" in it has a tooltip "ties resolved randomly" - where they actually never resolved randomly - like wtf is this mess? And there's a lot more stuff like this in game).

3. Balance in general. Having 0 chances against top-tier decks is just wrong. Need more "swing" cards (especially cards that would work against token spam decks or infinite boost decks or completely untouchable muli-decks. 0 ways to counter people shufling through their (or your) decks (or graveyard) like crazy).

OR

At the very least a fix to card rarity values since its quite obvious (based on my experience) that cards that go into top-tier decks have a lot less chances to appear from kegs than the "same" value cards that are just "noob" cards (or filler cards - cards that are there to take slots in your kegs).

They need to get their fundamentals in order, otherwise any changes would further spiral the game down into chaos.

4. Menu is annying as hell, too much load screens. Too much screens in general. Not enough tooltips.

 

[Therealmorkvarg]

Aight i can fix this. Make each row boost by 1 per unit whenever a row specific unit is placed on it. Got a treb put it in back row book from 8 points to 9 or got bluestripe scout throw him on front row boom boosted. (After turn end so it doesnt interrupt with bluestripes boosting mechanic) will also maybe make skellige shield maidens viable since they will be 12 points in 3 seperate cards instead of useless 9. Let me repeat totally useless 9 not even an army of skalds could save em. and as for coinflip let player who has first turn there first unit played is strengthened/boosted by 3. Or... even 5 armour. Would be nice. :victory:

 

[OG.laloquaint]

1. Netdecks.

2. Wording.

3. Balance.

If you don't see the coinflip as a problem then I don't know what to tell ya.

1. Netdecking is apparently a thing in a lot of games, not just Gwent. That's not something CDPR can really fix. I know some players, such as myself, were more inclined to "expand their horizons" with the introduction of the daily quest system but it obviously didn't stop people from playing the same three decks. In the end, netdecking complaints are pointless.
2. Wording IS really terrible but it more or less makes sense. The game is still going through a lot of changes and with every patch come a lot of tool-tip changes to make things more clear for new players. If you have questions about cards, I can explain exactly what they do.
3. Balance changes, like tool-tip updates, are still going on in the game. We get at least get one balance update every month.

I'm pretty sure CDPR is well-aware of these problems, so just relax.

 

[iamthedave]

Netdecking is a foolish complaint. Gwent naturally leans towards netdecking because by its very nature there are only a handful of most efficient ways to play a certain strategy, and once a pro player has revealed that path, your options are a) play a less efficient version and win less or b) play the most efficient version and win more.

It's a side consequence of a singular win condition. There is only one way to win and only one way to get there (condition: have the most points, way: prevent opponent having more than you).

I've made decks without the slightest bit of internet involvement that are almost card for card the same as ones on the net, because there's really only one way to build, say, a moonlight deck. For your 25 cards you're including (and you ARE including these cards) 3x moonlight, 3 x siren, 3 x werewolf, 3 x alpha werewolf, nekurat, 2-3 x slyzard (because they're one of the best monster bronzes and they help with getting those extra sirens out). So out the gate you've got 13 out of 25 cards 100% prescribed, and 2 more that you probably should take. How much variance can you put into those remaining 10 cards? Some, sure, but a lot of the time you'll pick the same cards as everyone else because there are only so many powerful silver and golds. I'm not going to set the world on fire by revealing my secret tech of WOODLAND SPIRIT + FOGLET (mind = blown) or Brewess: Tribute into black blood for a maybe second Nekurat.

I'd argue Henselt and Foltest swarm decks are even more prescribed than that, as multiple silver and gold slots are must-haves.

 

[tealquest]

Netdecking is apparently a thing in a lot of games, not just Gwent. That's not something CDPR can really fix. I know some players, such as myself, were more inclined to "expand their horizons" with the introduction of the daily quest system but it obviously didn't stop people from playing the same three decks. In the end, netdecking complaints are pointless.

Seeing (and editing) what is good for you only? Nice. But I never said anything about netdecks... Hm:

1. Matchmaking.

Originally posted by tealquest View Post
1. Netdecks.

HM...

 

[OG.laloquaint]

Seeing (and editing) what is good for you only? Nice. But I never said anything about netdecks... Hm:

Mate, are you okay?

1. Matchmaking. Which is horrible, placing completely new players with starter decks against top-netdecks.

The reason I edited your post was to minimize the space that it took. I read everything you wrote.

 

[tealquest]

The reason I edited your post was to minimize the space that it took. I read everything you wrote.

And you completely turned it upside down. Whatever, I'm no longer interested in keeping a conversation with a guy who can only see what's good for him. Was quite obvious from your very first post.

 

[OG.laloquaint]

And you completely turned it upside down. Whatever, I'm no longer interested in keeping a conversation with a guy who can only see what's good for him. Was quite obvious from your very first post.

I'm not sure why you're being so hostile, honestly. I didn't turn anything upside down, you DID mention netdecks and then you acted like you didn't even though it was literally right there. I guess you didn't understand anything of what I wrote. No matter, I'm sure it'll come to you someday.

 

[jeremyb616]

And you completely turned it upside down. Whatever, I'm no longer interested in keeping a conversation with a guy who can only see what's good for him. Was quite obvious from your very first post.

Just gonna say this, its hard for the devs to take the community seriously when people whine on forums around net decking....... take ST mulligan for example guaranteed you're taking saskia-iorveth- 3 virhed vanguard-3 vihred officers-3 half elf hunter AT LEAST 2 wardancers- yaevin-Aeliren this is just 15 cards but with virhed vanguard your last few cards are pretty well gonna end up elves it can vary but this is the bulk of mulligan decks, add in isemgrim and toruvial you got 17 leaving only 8 remaining options, sure you can add differen combos but generally speaking it acts the same way as other decks and is very efficient.